Logic – the process of reasoning using facts and inferences – is the common language spoken within rational discussions. Whether one is debating theology, philosophy or science, logic is often the judge on whether one argument is more sound over another. Any logical blunders can singlehandedly destroy an argument.

These breaches of logic are called logical fallacies and come in many forms. Common examples include:

• Strawman: misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack e.g. After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
• Slippery slope: asserting that one small action will lead to a chain of related events, culminating in a significant effect, and therefore one shouldn’t do the small action e.g. Colin asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

While there are many different types of fallacies out there, I’ve always felt some to be less definitive than others. These ‘softer’ fallacies, while still breaches of logic, don’t always lead to a dismissal of the argument, for occasionally, there are other issues and biases in conflict.

Perhaps the most interesting of these soft fallacies is the appeal to emotion fallacy, where one aims to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid argument. In situations like this, one encounters a dilemma: whether to sacrifice one’s deeper feelings in place of logic.

The problem of this argumentum ad passiones is that logic in the present moment can be deeply flawed. In his bestselling book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell examines the ‘gut feeling’ that we all encounter, and how these feelings often provide a better means of operating over using pure logic. He writes, addressing the hyperrational state of our society,

We have, as human beings, a storytelling problem. We’re a bit too quick to come up with explanations for things we don’t really have an explanation for. Later on, Gladwell concludes:

There can be as much value in the blink of an eye as in months of rational analysis.

In the pursuit of truth, logical fallacies provide a strong defence against implausible ideas. Yet, to solely rely on reason as a mode of living doesn’t come without its own dangers. As Yann Martel put it in Life of Pi,

If you stumble over mere believability, what are you living for? Love is hard to believe, ask any lover. Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist. God is hard to believe, ask any believer. What is your problem with hard to believe? Reason is excellent for getting food, clothing and shelter. Reason is the very best tool kit. Nothing beats reason for keeping tigers away. But be excessively reasonable and you risk throwing out the universe with the bathwater.